Gx Os

[Tony]

standard out is part of the IO that's provided by the OS. So yes, if you want to take advantage of OS specific features, then it would obviously be different.

Though I think we were talking about the on-hardware programming that would create the said IO (among many other things).

[apomb]

I am very surprised at the fact that anyone would actually posit such an absurd assumption that Turing would be a suitable language to write an OS in... thats like saying "Hey guys, I'm planning on writing a full Symphony using nothing but this cheese grater, I've seen it done before with a kazoo, it cant be much different"

[mirhagk]

um i think your post is misleading apomb, turing is nowhere near as useful as a cheese grater. lol jk

and sorry i thought that things were done differently with macs. if i was wrong sorry, i just assumed

[DemonWasp]

@DtY: No, the type of assembly code used is dependent on the hardware. Modern Apple computers (the last 3 years or so) have shifted to using chips based on the x86 instruction set, probably because it was too expensive to compete both in software and in hardware with the giants backing the x86 instruction set (IBM, Microsoft, Intel, AMD). Previously, Apple computers had used a different chipset that ran on a RISC instruction set; x86 and its 64-bit extension, x86_64, are both CISC. Their instructions would be very different.

What would be dependent on the OS is how system calls are made - not the mechanism of the system call, but which calls are available and their exact behaviour. This is part of why apps compiled for Linux don't work in Windows, Windows apps won't run on OSX and OSX apps won't run on Linux. Applications like Wine attempt to solve this problem.

[Tony]

DemonWasp @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:56 pm wrote:

probably because it was too expensive to compete both in software and in hardware with the giants backing the x86 instruction set (IBM, Microsoft, Intel, AMD).

Interesting hypothesis, but absolutely wrong.

IBM designed and build PowerPC chips for Apple. When IBM shifted their focus to adapt PowerPC chips for the gaming consoles (that's right, xbox360, PS3, and Wii use the type of CPU chips that Apple used to use), IBM has failed to address the needs of Apple. This is when Apple moved on, getting a better deal and performance out of Intel chips.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC

[DemonWasp]

Hmm. I said that thinking that it was Motorola making chips for Apple, but apparently I was wrong. Thanks for the correction.

[Tony]

Yeah, company relations could get very complicated, and it's easy to loose track.

Good call on RISC vs. CISC though. Those would be quite different.

[gan gar]

ok like an luncher.

[gan gar]

ok like a luncher then.

[mirhagk]

why did you double post?? and are you trying to say your program is going to be a launcher

[Turing_Gamer]

LOL it would be nice if you can make an OS on turing.
That should be the challenge of the year...

[wtd]

DemonWasp @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:56 pm wrote:

Previously, Apple computers had used a different chipset that ran on a RISC instruction set; x86 and its 64-bit extension, x86_64, are both CISC.

This is oversimplification. PowerPC is a very CISC-like RISC architecture, and modern x86 chips have that instruction set essentially implemented as a compatibility wrapper over a very RISC-y core.

In short, in the debate over who was right, the RISCers or the CISCers, the answer is that both and neither were right.

[link1438]

What you could do is, create an Emulator (which runs on top of the OS) or make an Application that basically LOOKS like an OS.

As they've mentioned, it could be called a "Launcher".

[mirhagk]

I was considering making an alternative to windows explorer (the launcher idea basically), I was even thinking about a 3D explorer (equiped with a recycling bin to delete things)

lol maybe i'll make it if anyone is interested

[Tony]

BumpTop might be interested

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/anand_agarawala_demos_his_bumptop_desktop.html